Time for a New International Game Plan

A growing number of the national security challenges
America faces are global in nature. Terrorism and the proliferation
of nuclear weapons along with the missiles to deliver them merely
top the list. The economic crisis of 2008 and Russia's invasion of
Georgia, a free and democratic nation looking to enter NATO,
demonstrate that America's interests span the globe. Sadly, the
alliances and international institutions that we helped create
in the past century to deal with such challenges are ill suited to
doing so.

The world's major international institutions and organizations,
established in the wake of World War II, have changed dramatically
over the decades, yet they have never shed the genetic makeup of
their creation. Their original structures fit a particular
time, which has long since passed away.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was designed to
defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union, but that is not its
central focus today. The United Nations was supposed to enable
Western powers like the United States to lead the world in securing
peace; yet after the addition of scores of new members to its
political body, the General Assembly, it has seemed more intent on
curbing rather than accommodating U.S. leadership. Of all the
postwar creations, the Bretton Woods institutions function most
closely to their original purposes; yet even they at times have
lost touch with the fundamental economic principles of
free-market capitalism on which the world's prosperity depends.

It is time for America's leaders to think more boldly about the
best ways to secure peace and prosperity in the 21st century. It is
time for a new international game plan, one that envisions new and
revitalized international institutions and alliances that are
better equipped to defend and promote liberty both at home and
around the world.

21st Century Challenges Need 21st
Century Responses

America had at least a hand in creating all of the postwar
international institutions, and it was assumed that their success
depended on its continued support and leadership. Today,
however, many of these institutions often dismiss the very idea of
U.S. leadership as a relic of the past. Even our allies will
sometimes treat America's attempts at leadership more as a problem
to be overcome than as a necessity for securing peace and
freedom in the world.

Yet securing peace and freedom in the world cannot be
achieved with America on the sidelines. With interests that span
the globe, the United States is still the most powerful, most
influential, and richest country in the world and the only major
power capable of projecting that power on behalf of freedom
and peace. No country that relies on her for freedom and security
should ever want to see America relegated to the role of mere
Chairman of the Board of International Consensus as defined by the
U.N. or the European Union (EU) -- which is precisely what
American leadership will become unless the United States finds more
effective ways to exercise its unique role in the world. Our
existing institutions and alliances should not be abandoned,
but they should be supplemented with something far more
effective.

The time may be right for a fundamental reevaluation of our
alliances and international associations. Russia's recent
invasion of Georgia and its military support for blatantly
anti-American countries like Venezuela and Iran have been
stark reminders that new threats to our freedoms can arise at any
time, and our existing alliances may not be up to the task of
defending them. The EU proved feckless in the face of Russian
aggression; and NATO's involvement in Afghanistan, undermined as it
was by many European members' meager combat contributions, has
been unable to prevent a military success from withering away.
This is exactly the opposite of what occurred in Iraq with the
U.S.-led coalition of the willing.

There is also the open question of China's rise. Though some
believe its international power is and will remain economic, no one
can completely predict or dismiss what a future powerful China
will do in Asia. It is a rising power unhappy with key aspects of
the international order. It may or may not become a major military
threat to international peace and stability. No one disputes that
possibility. Yet the United States is poorly equipped to prepare
for or deal with such a contingency. Our military alliances in Asia
are not and should not at this point be focused exclusively on
China, but the lack of a mechanism to coordinate our interests
across alliances is a major strategic weakness.

In addition, the U.S.-led war on terrorism lacks any coherent
way to coordinate policies and activities. Most
counterterrorism relies on intelligence, and intelligence sharing
is best done bilaterally. But the world still needs an
international venue to bring together all the countries committed
to freedom and security to share best practices, build confidence
and trust, and find better ways to coordinate the various and
complicated strands of countering international terrorism -- a truly
global phenomenon. There are no major institutions dealing with or
fighting terrorism today in a serious or effective manner.

The same is true for countering nuclear proliferation. Iran
and North Korea have shown how difficult it is under the
existing international non-proliferation framework to dissuade
hostile regimes from pursuing and acquiring nuclear weapons
capabilities. The U.N. has blessed the creation of multilateral
partnerships like the U.S.-initiated and led Proliferation Security
Initiative for interdicting illicit shipments of nuclear
technology, nuclear weapons, and ballistic missiles, but even the
PSI, largely a cooperative exercise-based operation, has had little
effect on resolving the international impasse over Iran and North
Korea.

Moreover, U.S. economic leadership in international
institutions is increasingly weak. The World Trade Organization
(WTO) should remain the main avenue for advancing free trade
globally, but its narrow focus on trade and lack of progress
on trade agreements make it a poor vehicle for discussing larger
issues of economic freedom -- the primary determinant of economic
development.[1] International financial institutions
such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are too
narrowly focused on aid or financial functions and their
membership is too ideologically split to broadly advocate policies
that promote economic growth. And with its dedication to retrograde
and discredited economic development theories, the U.N. is the
last place America should expect to exercise leadership on
economic policy. With China, Russia, and authoritarian regimes
offering renewed challenges to free-market capitalism, America and
the world's other free economies need a louder international voice
with which to proclaim the virtues of their proven system.

Finally, there is the issue of human rights. The U.N. Human
Rights Council is simply an embarrassment. With such members
as China, Cuba, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, it is the proverbial fox
guarding the henhouse. It is more an impediment than facilitator in
ending the tragedy in Darfur; it passes resolutions against Israel
but ignores atrocities elsewhere; it adopts resolutions on the
"defamation of religion" that restrict freedom of speech when
it means criticism of Islam. The entire U.N. machinery for
implementing human rights conventions trivializes the very
notion of human rights, which today include everything from a
child's right to access any and all information, no matter how
objectionable parents find it, to the right of all people to
leisure and paid holidays.

The watering down of real human rights -- the natural rights to
life, liberty, and property -- by these actions has set back the
advance of civil rights and freedom for decades. The fact that EU
members and other U.S. allies so readily defer to the U.N. on human
rights questions only makes matters worse. The world greatly needs
a new forum in which to more sharply define and better advocate
basic human rights based on the protection of life, liberty, and
economic freedom.

All of these problems point to one conclusion: We need
imaginative thinking about what kinds of new institutions,
coalitions, and associations would best fit America's traditional
role as defender of freedom. It will not do to create
international bureaucracies that pretend to capture an
"international Consensus" as if that necessarily represents a
common good, no matter what its content. International
Consensus has never been and may never be a common good. More
often, it is an excuse for inaction or a cover for oppression (as
was the case in Rwanda and is the case in Darfur).

American leadership must connect to our nation's historical
roots of defending liberty, prosperity, and security.
Otherwise, our actions will lack moral justification in the eyes of
the American people and the world.

Time for a Global Freedom
Coalition

At the top of the list of institutional reforms must be
America's security associations. NATO is still needed for the
defense of Europe and if enlarged will be a vital alliance for
out-of-area missions that threaten its interests -- such as fighting
al-Qaeda and global terrorism. But today, it is not the only
partner for America to advance its global interests and values, and
despite taking on the lead in Afghanistan, it is too slow, divided,
and parochial to become a truly global alliance.

The time may be ripe for America to start looking for
additional potential partners that are not already in an existing
formal alliance with us. It may also be wise to begin thinking of
mechanisms that are not as formal as but are no less dedicated to
action than alliances to help advance our security interests.
Consultative and planning mechanisms may be the order of the day,
rather than rigid promises or commitments. Whatever the
mechanism, the days of forming alliances based exclusively on the
lines of regional and territorial defense may be over.

Clearly, some new global security association is needed, but
what would it look like? Washington should consider forming a
Global Freedom Coalition (GFC) -- a voluntary association of
like-minded nations around the world that is premised on two
fundamental principles: first, that security and liberty
(which encompasses civil, economic, and political freedoms)
are inextricably linked in that, as the United States and its
partners promote global conditions conducive to the
strengthening of free societies, they are simultaneously
enhancing their own national security interests and, second, that
broader multilateral security cooperation becomes more critical as
global economic power becomes more diffuse and global threats
increase.

Objectives for the Coalition. Such a new coalition
should have four essential objectives:

To serve as a flexible, adaptive multilateral forum for the
world's major free nations. In the coming years, countries
linked by a commitment to freedom will need a better
consultative mechanism for matters of international importance.
Existing institutions like the U.N. and the Community of
Democracies cannot fulfill this role; the former is
overbureaucratized, and Consensus is the dominant value; the
latter is defined by inaction and irrelevance.

To cooperate to defeat the most immediate global threats to
free nations. Members of the coalition would take collaborative
action to limit the perils posed by terrorism, international crime,
and the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological, and
biological weapons, utilizing a full complement of tools -- such
as coordinated sanctions, intelligence sharing, integrated law
enforcement and counter-terrorism capabilities, and joint
military training, exercises, and operations. The success
of the Proliferation Security Initiative has demonstrated the
potential for such effective multilateral coordination. The
coalition could draw these and other projects into a broader, more
coherent strategy for addressing threats as they arise.

To maintain, as the 2002 National Security Strategy asserts,
"a balance of power that favors freedom" well into the future.
Amid today's uncertainty and potential instability, the coalition
would strive to protect the cause of liberty against forces that
have both the aim and the capacity to undermine free institutions
on a global scale. Much as the Concert of Europe kept the peace in
the 19th century, the coalition should work to ensure that the
current order evolves toward a stability in which freedom
flourishes and authoritarianism and anarchy fade.

To create positive inducements for economic
liberalization and the growth of free institutions
worldwide. Members of the coalition would tailor and
coordinate their development and aid strategies to open economies
further and ensure an uninterrupted supply of energy, strengthen
pluralism and political systems, and adopt other measures that will
increase freedom.

Criteria for Membership. membership in the coalition
should be based on three simple criteria: a country's demonstrated
commitment to freedom on both domestic and international levels;
its willingness and readiness to respond to any significant
and common threat that arises; and its ability to contribute
meaningfully to the coalition's activities and purposes. It should
be clearly understood at the outset that countries failing to honor
these core commitments could be asked to disassociate
themselves from the coalition.

As a voluntary association, coalitions within the coalition
could perform tasks that the whole group might not wish or need to
undertake. A "front-line state strategy" would give primary
responsibility to the nations directly affected by a given issue or
crisis but leave the resources deployed (military or
otherwise) under the jurisdiction of each contributing
state.In this way, the coalition would affirm the principle of
national sovereignty even as it promoted cooperation.

States transitioning to greater liberalization and that are
committed to the coalition's aims could be included in its
activities in some manner, much as our Cold War alliances included
Portugal, which, though not yet fully democratic, was contributing
to the defense of liberty against the Soviet Union. The coalition
must not sacrifice quality for quantity. Yes, it must be a broadly
multilateral endeavor to succeed, but diluting its aims or
criteria just to increase its numbers would undercut its
effectiveness. The coalition thus should not seek a membership so
broad as to make meaningful action impossible, but instead should
find a core group of states that can operate cohesively on most
essential matters.

Since this coalition would not be an official international
organization, there would be no need for a bureaucracy,
secretariat, or other permanent supranational structure.
Members would coordinate policies and activities for common
aims; conduct ministerial or other meetings as required; and pool
their economic, military , intelligence, or diplomatic resources as
needed.

This concept of a flexible, voluntary coalition should not be
confused with recent ideas for a "democratic community," or even a
"League of Democracies" as John McCain proposed in a Foreign
Affairs article in late 2007. Such proposals suggest that the
membership criterion should be "democracy," which, though
laudable in intent, is both too broad and too narrow. It would be
too broad in that states that are democracies in name only could
qualify; they might hold elections, but they could
contribute little to the coalition activities or, worse,
resist taking action -- putting the coalition at risk of falling
victim to the same cacophony of competing interests that hobbles
the U.N.

The Community of Democracies, which includes such authoritarian
nations as Belarus and Egypt, demonstrates what happens if the
criteria are too broad. But using a strict definition of political
democracy would also be too narrow, forcing the coalition to
exclude states such as Thailand, which is transitioning to liberal
democracy and has demonstrated its commitment to the defense
of liberty by participating in the Proliferation Security
Initiative.

Finally, the Global Freedom Coalition should not be thought of
as a traditional military alliance. Since it would not be organized
to defend a discrete territory, there would be no need for a
"common defense" commitment like NATO's Article V. It would be
inappropriate for the coalition's overall aims and could also
embroil it in a member's territorial or border disputes that
have little to do with the broader mission. Indeed, there would
have to be understandings with specific members that the coalition
would not address certain issues. Rather than replicating NATO's
structure or that of other alliances, the coalition should forge a
new and highly flexible security framework that is better suited to
addressing the evolving challenges of the 21st century.

The Advantages. The benefits of such a coalition are
attractive. Its mission would match well the policies of allies
like the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and others that
joined us in promoting freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Democratic and transitioning states in East and Southeast Asia
(such as Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines)
would value its counterterrorism work as well as its role as a
hedge against an aggressive China. Colombia, Indonesia, and others
menaced by violent extremism would gain much from building
trust and cooperating on law enforcement, intelligence
sharing, and military training. Rising powers that desire respect
and recognition might find its prestige more alluring than
relations with Russia or China. Finally, the potential for
receiving U.S. technical and military assistance, traditionally a
central part of U.S. relations with its allies, would be a strong
attraction.

The coalition would thus be well positioned to draw broad
international support and transcend traditional divisions
between Europe and Asia and between industrialized and
underdeveloped nations.

The Global Freedom Coalition would complement rather than
supersede other bilateral and multilateral agreements and
alliances.It would deal with global issues that NATO cannot or is
unwilling to touch or handle and should be viewed as a supplement,
not rival. Specific NATO members might or might not choose to
associate themselves with it; that should be left up to them.
Europeans should apply the same logic they assign to the European
Security and Defense Policy: It would benefit NATO. A strong
America globally is at least as good for NATO as a strong EU
(some may argue that it would be far better). Anything that
strengthens international peace and security is good for NATO. The
only grounds on which some Europeans could object would be ones
that reflect parochial concerns.

Major non-NATO allies such as Australia, Israel, or Japan could
be first-tier candidates for the coalition. The same logic of
not interfering with NATO would apply; no one should be asked to
choose between NATO and the GFC. If circumstances warrant it,
non-NATO nations should be encouraged to join both organizations to
advance freedom and security. NATO expansion could proceed
on a separate track, following existing procedures, objectives, and
plans.

For the U.S., there would be other advantages. Since the end of
the Cold War, Washington has often found its options constrained by
the very institutions that served it so well during that 45-year
struggle. Cultural and political rifts between America and many of
its European allies have emerged and even deepened. Relations with
NATO are often a matter of Washington's trying to convince
unenthusiastic European leaders to contribute to causes for which
they have little sympathy or understanding (such as Iraq and
missile defense). To the extent that our core security
relationships become more global in nature, we would be less
dependent on the cooperation of countries that speak about freedom
but insist that America shoulder almost all of the burden.

In other words, the Global Freedom Coalition would be a means
for strengthening both freedom and liberty while at the same time
restoring America's strategic flexibility.

As this coalition develops, so too would its salutary
effect on international politics. The inclusion of both Japan and
South Korea, or India and Pakistan, would weave such nations into a
framework that emphasizes their shared interests, just as NATO did
for countries following World War II. The coalition could serve as
a deterrent to authoritarian powers seeking regional or global
hegemony and an additional multilateral source of pressure on
nuclear-ambitious nations like Iran and North Korea. Finally, the
allure of membership could induce more countries to liberalize,
much as the prospect of joining NATO pushed former Soviet bloc
countries to embrace political reforms in the 1990s.

There will be objections to a Global Freedom Coalition, of
course. Its very scope and ambition would, in the short term at
least, produce friction in U.S. relations with some European
allies. Certain NATO members (such as France and Germany --
ironically, the very countries that champion a separate
European defense identity) would sense an end run around them and
complain that the coalition is undermining NATO. Washington and
other free nations should not accept this argument. NATO will
likely remain at its core a transatlantic alliance, while the GFC
would be explicitly global in purpose and function. The very
argument that some European NATO members use to circumscribe
NATO expansion -- namely, that some prospective new members like
Georgia are not part of Europe -- should be highlighted to prove
that the GFC does not seek to replicate or interfere with NATO's
fundamental mission of transatlantic and European defense.

With the Iraq War fading and Russia again flexing its
military muscle, more countries are likely to welcome a broader
security association with the U.S. And though countering terrorism
would be a central focus, it should not be the only one. Allies
such as South Korea and Japan may have little interest in that
effort. However, they and other smaller Asian countries like
Singapore might like to join a global security coalition as
insurance against a rising China. Since it would be a global
enterprise, the GFC could not be tarred as merely intending to
contain China. And yet, if China ever were to act as an
aggressor, the coalition could be politically useful in organizing
a response.

The coalition also would have value in compensating for a
weakened NATO. As president of the EU, French President Nicolas
Sarkozy took the lead in negotiating a cease-fire with Russia over
Georgia, in spite of the fact that many Europeans believe Georgia
is not part of Europe (they opposed Georgia's membership in
NATO for this very reason). So why did the EU take the lead in the
negotiations? Because there was no viable alternative. The U.S. had
to choose between direct confrontation or mediation by the EU, an
institution that is interested more in accommodating
energy-rich Russia than in defending "faraway" Georgia's
sovereignty.

If the GFC had existed with Georgia as a member, at the
very least it could have put another negotiator into the mix.
This negotiator might or might not have been the U.S., but if it
were not, it would at least have been a country more in tune with
U.S. and Georgian wishes and interests and not as fearful and
beholden to Russia as the EU is. As a multilateral and global
institution, it would have been a stronger voice for the
geopolitically orphaned Georgia than either the EU or NATO
was.

At some point, the GFC could become strong enough to supplant
the EU as surrogate negotiator on behalf of U.S. interests. The EU
played that role rather unsatisfactorily with respect to Iran and
Russia. Diplomatic inertia and habits as well as howls of
complaints from some EU members would militate against such a
change. Adversaries like Russia and Iran like negotiating with the
U.S. through the EU; it gives them leverage they otherwise would
not have if they were negotiating directly with Washington or
a firmer interlocutor than the EU.

The United States needs a negotiating partner that would protect
its interests more reliably. Whether the GFC would evolve into that
is an open question, but as a long-range goal, it should be
explored.

Time for a Global Economic Freedom
Forum

There is also a need to ramp up efforts to promote and
protect economic freedom around the world. In Washington and
elsewhere, free trade and the economic policies that promote
prosperity are under attack. Policymakers too often make
decisions that are economically counterproductive and frankly
protectionist.

The time has come for countries that have witnessed the
benefits of economic freedom to create a new venue where they could
freely discuss what works and what does not and develop new ways to
tackle the latest stresses on the global economy. The United
States, still the world's economic powerhouse, should take the
lead in establishing a Global Economic Freedom Forum -- a flexible
association that would host summits, similar to the G-8, where
heads of state from the world's 15 or 20 freest economies
would gather, set agendas, and find ways to highlight the benefits
of lowering taxes, eliminating subsidies, deregulating markets,
improving property rights, signing trade agreements, and
liberalizing investment laws. Each year, they could issue
joint statements on the best way to deal with the world's current
economic and financial problems.

The President of the United States could host the first summit
in Washington. He should invite only countries that believe in
economic freedom so as to avoid the ideological battles over basic
economic policies that characterize the debates at the WTO and the
U.N. He should seek broad geographical diversity in those he
invites. Countries such as Mauritius, Bahrain, Chile, Ireland,
and Singapore have as much to bring to the table as the U.K.,
Canada, and Australia. Small countries, if they do the right
things, should be invited as well. Countries that do not uphold the
principles and policies of economic freedom should not be
invited, even as observers, as that would undermine the summit's
purpose, confuse the dialogue, and duplicate other ineffective
forums.

The initial group of invitees could evolve into a sort of
steering committee that would establish the principles and agenda
for future summits. It could select countries that have
demonstrated prominent leadership on issues like agricultural
subsidies, intellectual property rights, and Internet taxation to
lead various discussions. It could also host larger meetings with
those countries that do some things well but still fall short in
some areas of economic freedom as measured by international indices
like The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal's Index of
Economic Freedom. As the forum's prestige grows, its policies
could be echoed by its members at the G-8 and the WTO. They could
even become the basis for a caucus at the U.N.

Such a forum would highlight American leadership on world
economic issues and the remarkable prosperity that its leadership
brought to the world over the past 50 years. And it would set a
positive example for how to break the logjams that cripple today's
international institutions.

Time for a Liberty Forum for Human
Rights

A Global Freedom Coalition would be best placed to mobilize
freedom-loving peoples into a common effort to define and defend
liberty, and a Global Economic Freedom Forum would help
promote economic freedom. But there also is a need to create a
new international association of nations to defend and advance
human rights. The U.N. Human Rights Council has proven itself
completely unworthy of the mantle.

The President of the United States should take the lead in
launching a Liberty Forum for Human Rights, a place where countries
that uphold economic, civil, and political freedoms can
promote them and the role of the free democratic and sovereign
state in upholding liberty, justice, and equality before the law.
Some of America's friends (particularly in Europe) would at
first be lukewarm, but many other countries would want to join. All
of the forum's meetings should be held in neutral places as far
from the discredited United Nations Human Rights Council as
possible.

A New Game Plan

America's alliances and international associations are sorely
outdated. Our adversaries and friends use the United Nations and
other institutions to contain U.S. influence and to counter
American leadership. Washington has been reluctant to challenge
this situation, too often relying on creaky old institutions
that have outlived their usefulness or that have taken on roles
other than those originally intended.

America's multilateral strategies are like an old-fashioned
football team stuck in the past. While younger "teams" invent
exciting plays that essentially reinvent the game, America
keeps doing the same old thing -- plodding off to the Security
Council or begging the EU to negotiate an end to a crisis.
Running old plays is precisely what our adversaries and rivals want
us to do. They know how to defeat them and are fond of doing a
classic "head fake," showering our "multilateral" efforts with
self-serving praise. We invented the U.N. and the
international system, they say, so we should be happy to play
the game. The problem is that others know it's not the same
old game, and our adversaries in many cases are running circles
around us.

This must stop. The United States cannot remain a global leader
unless it modernizes its alliances and international associations.
It's time to think boldly about our nation's future. America needs
international institutions, alliances, and a multilateral
diplomacy worthy of a great power that is dedicated to the
advancement of freedom and security.

Kim R. Holmes,
Ph.D., is Vice President for Foreign and >Defense Policy
Studies and Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis
Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation
and author of Liberty's Best Hope: American Leadership for the
21st Century (2008). Henry Brands contributed to this
article.

Share

The United States cannot remain a global leader unless itmodernizes its alliances and international associations. Americaneeds international institutions, alliances, and a multilateraldiplomacy worthy of a great power that is dedicated to theadvancement of freedom and security. It is time to create a GlobalFreedom Coalition, a Global Economic Freedom Forum, and a LibertyForum for Human Rights.

Key Points

1 America’s alliances and international associations
are sorely outdated. Our adversaries
and friends use the United Nations and other
institutions to contain U.S. influence and to
counter American leadership.

2 A Global Freedom Coalition would mobilize
freedom-loving peoples into a common effort
to define and defend liberty, and a Global
Economic Freedom Forum would help promote
economic freedom.

3 There also is a need to create a new international
association of nations to defend and
advance human rights. The U.N. Human
Rights Council has proven itself completely
unworthy of the mantle.

4 The President of the United States should
therefore take the lead in launching a Liberty
Forum for Human Rights, where countries that
uphold economic, civil, and political freedoms
can promote them and the role of the free
democratic and sovereign state in upholding
liberty, justice, and equality before the law.

Key Points

America’s alliances and international associations
are sorely outdated. Our adversaries
and friends use the United Nations and other
institutions to contain U.S. influence and to
counter American leadership.

A Global Freedom Coalition would mobilize
freedom-loving peoples into a common effort
to define and defend liberty, and a Global
Economic Freedom Forum would help promote
economic freedom.

There also is a need to create a new international
association of nations to defend and
advance human rights. The U.N. Human
Rights Council has proven itself completely
unworthy of the mantle.

The President of the United States should
therefore take the lead in launching a Liberty
Forum for Human Rights, where countries that
uphold economic, civil, and political freedoms
can promote them and the role of the free
democratic and sovereign state in upholding
liberty, justice, and equality before the law.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."

Sign up to start your free subscription today!

Sorry! Your form had errors:

About The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.

Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More